Fair Work Ombudsman v Adadn Pty Ltd

The Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings against Adadn Pty Ltd (the first respondent) and its sole director and secretary, Mr. Kosta (the second respondent), seeking default judgment. The dispute arose from Adadn Pty Ltd's failure to comply with an order of the Fair Work Commission, which had previously found Mr. Hilario's dismissal to be harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and ordered compensation and superannuation contributions. Despite repeated demands and court orders, neither respondent had filed a defence or engaged with the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether to grant default judgment against both respondents. Specifically, the court needed to consider if the applicant had established a prima facie case based on the statement of claim, and if the circumstances warranted the exercise of its discretion to enter judgment in default of a defence, pursuant to Rule 13.03B(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The applicant also sought to establish the second respondent's personal liability for the contravention.

Jarrett J applied Rule 13.03B(2)(c), which allows for default judgment where the applicant appears entitled to the relief sought on the statement of claim and the court has the power to grant it. The judge found that the respondents were in default, having failed to file a notice of address for service, a response, or a defence, and had not complied with previous court orders. The statement of claim alleged that the first respondent contravened section 405 of the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with the Fair Work Commission's order. Furthermore, the statement of claim alleged that the second respondent, as the sole director and secretary, was responsible for the company's operations and compliance, had actual knowledge of the order and its contravention, and was an intentional participant in the failure to comply.

The court found that the respondents were in default and that the discretion to grant default judgment was enlivened. The facts alleged in the statement of claim established that the first respondent contravened section 405 of the Fair Work Act. The court was satisfied that it had the power to grant the relief sought and that the applicant was entitled to judgment on the face of the statement of claim.